From my perspective, this post originates from a position fueled by passive-aggressive behavior, and in my opinion is disrespectful to photographers who don't agree with the position put forth by the O.P. Perhaps that's a fair type of response to Jim Martin's original post, if Jim's post is deemed as a challenge. I don't know.
As one who shoots medium format digital (and not high-end gear), as well as the usual suspects found in the typical well-stocked camera locker today (in my case: Canon), it seems odd to me that Ray would once again spend such an extensive amount of time to engage in such discussions under
the guise of "learning". One has only to shoot a few samples of MFDB and lens combinations to decide if s/he is well served by the option of a photographic kit comprised of medium format gear. But Ray has repeatedly stated that he need not shoot MFD to understand it, since he has certain representatives such as DxO, etc. (never mind what you and your clients see). That's great, if one is comfortable with such a resource for what may be a subjective or artistic evaluation in the end. In my case, I shoot, I look, I decide. I'm not swayed by comments such as "you're biased because you want to justify your purchase" because I want the cheapest, lightest, quality kit for the work that I want to produce. Not to mention that I have a fairly strong science background and still think like a lab nerd.
I'm not sure why these discussions continue, but like the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L vs. 85mm f/1.8 discussions of yore, they draw many of us in like a 13-car-pile-up on the interstate.
Ray, you obviously love discussing this stuff, and I get that, but if you really want to
understand you must shoot MFDB, with ice water in your veins (to remove emotional expectations), to understand what others are contributing to these discussions. Frankly, it's disrespectful to the community if you don't invest such efforts. And I must add that one outing with a MFD kit is not enough. There is a learning curve... to the kit, and to the software. That may be a check in the negative column for you, and that's okay, but it only carries value if it is properly evaluated.
I shoot MFD because I like the look of the files more. The difference is not subtle to me because the things that
I appreciate are accentuated by MFD. This may not be the case for you, and that's great too. It's okay to disagree about the aesthetics.
I'm pretty sure that this community gets that you don't really think that MFD is for you – for reasons you know best. I doubt that anyone judges that negatively, and some may even be jealous of the financial benefits. But by the same token, it would be gracious if you would respectfully accept that those who have taken the time and invested the money to experience MFD, and who have decided that it fills a need of theirs, are making the choice from a position of knowledge of their own needs and preferences, and the ability to observe substantive differences which justify the considerable expense.
Ray, please don't respond to this in a manner in which you attempt to justify your implied position by railing against usability issues, low-light weaknesses, etc. Accomplished photographers know the the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of kit and adjust accordingly. We know when to grab the Canon or Nikon, and when to grab the Phase One or Hasselblad, etc.. There are lots of times when they overlap, and like Jim's article suggests, some overlapping opportunities may not be obvious.
You have asked this community several times to justify medium format digital camera equipment. Don't you think it's appropriate that you take the time to learn first-hand what may or may not be present in the MFDB experience? And even then, if your results differ from those stated by others, does it not make sense to humbly accept that each of us has different requirements and preferences?